11 November 2012 12:33 AM

Crime ISN'T falling, it's just that we've given up trying to combat it

This is Peter Hitchens' Mail On Sunday column

Has anything been happening while much of our media have been obsessed with a foreign contest between two mediocrities for a post that isn’t as important as it looks?

Well, how about this blood-freezing statistic? More than 50 rapists have been let off with cautions, without ever facing a trial.

No doubt you thought that cautions were the sort of thing they gave to teenagers found drunk and flat on their faces in the street. But rape? Isn’t that important?

In fact, isn’t it – thanks to political correctness – one of the few crimes that everyone still takes seriously, even Guardian readers? And more than 50 rapists, who have admitted the offence, have been given cautions for it? Shouldn’t the Government have fallen?

You might expect the Tories to make a fuss about this but – now of course you remember – the Tories are in this Government and, in fact, dominate it.

Actually, this is only a small part of a much bigger problem uncovered by the Magistrates’ Association, whose members had begun to wonder why business in their courts was getting so slack. Had crime stopped?

No, it hadn’t. Something else had happened. Criminals, the Government and the police were co-operating in a vast project which benefits everyone except the British public.

The police benefit because they look as if they’re doing something, when they’re not. The criminals benefit because they get let off so they can go and commit more crimes. And the Government benefits because it does not have to build the hundred or so huge new prisons that would be needed to house malefactors if we still took crime seriously.

Actually, it’s far worse than I can fully state here, a horrible catalogue of unpunished evil, under which severe violence, child cruelty, burglary and even blackmail have been dealt with through the law’s equivalent of a shrug.

I plan to put a much fuller version of this scandal on my blog in the next few days, drawn from the jaw-dropping report by the Magistrates’ Association which should by now have been on every newspaper front page in the country.

When you read – as you often do – that ‘crime is falling’, you must understand what this really means. It means that large numbers of wicked acts are no longer considered as crimes by the authorities. If we had the standards of 60 years ago, half the young people in the country would be locked up.

If the police and courts of that era had judged crime by our standards, their prisons would have been empty.

It is not crime that has fallen, it is partly our own moral standard, our expectation of good, considerate, honest behaviour from our neighbours that has fallen.

But it is also that the police and the Government, seeking a quiet life, have found it easier and cheaper to ignore wrongdoing until it gets out of control.

Like all appeasement of evil, this policy invites a reckoning in the future.

Bowing to a despot? That’s an odd way to promote freedom, Dave

The happiest picture of the week comes from Saudi Arabia, where our Prime Minister was festooned by King Abdullah with the King Abdul Aziz Al Saud Excellence Medal.

I do hope it was the First Class kind, rather than the Standard Class. After all, Mr Slippery has been incredibly busy promoting so-called ‘freedom’ in the Arab world, almost everywhere except in Saudi Arabia itself, one of the most secretive, sectarian and repressive despotisms on the planet.

Please note that this ‘freedom’, often achieved and sustained through terrible violence, has invariably suited the foreign policy objectives of the Saudi Kingdom.

If we are going to sell our souls for oil and arms sales, I’d rather we said so openly than pretended it was a struggle for Arab liberty.

Propping up an army of addicts

If you deliberately and openly injured yourself, for instance by breaking your own fingers, and made yourself unfit for work, would you seriously expect the taxpayer to keep you?

Of course not. In that case, why are millions of pounds of my money and yours being spent on benefit payments to so-called ‘alcoholics’ and ‘drug addicts’?

Roughly 34,000 such people receive Employment Support Allowance, and more than 21,000 receive Disability Living Allowance. I get into terrible trouble with Guardian readers and the Twitter mob for saying that I don’t believe in ‘addiction’.

But why should I, and why should you? The word ‘addiction’ simply assumes that human beings have no will of their own. But they do. Nobody forces anyone to start drinking too much, and it takes quite a lot of effort to become a habitual heroin user.

Even assuming it was true (which it isn’t) that such people cannot stop if they want to, why would they want to stop if they are told by society that their gross appetites are a disease, and they are paid unearned money because of their alleged sickness?

This is an insult to the truly ill, whose problems are not their own fault, and who in many cases deserve more generous treatment than they actually get from the welfare state.

A weird development on the ‘Did Edward Miliband receive private tuition while at his comprehensive school?’ question. I first put this to a so-called ‘source’ a month ago. The ‘source’ stopped answering his telephone for several days. Then he sent me a text message from an airport lounge saying he was ‘going on holiday’.

Even after his return from his politically correct beach, the silence dragged on. Then on Friday the source responded to a text message to say that Mr Miliband ‘didn’t have a private tutor’. I rang him. ‘When did you put the question to Mr Miliband?’ He wouldn’t say.

I asked: ‘Did you actually put the question to Mr Miliband?’ He said: ‘Mmm.’ Under pressure, he converted this ‘mmm’ into a hesitant ‘yes’. He emitted only a reluctant ‘yes’ when I asked if I could write that the Labour leader had personally said he had not been privately tutored. I suggested to the source he would look much less silly if he gave me a straight answer, but he declined.

Thus do we pursue the truth, in an age when politicians have never been so infested with aides and press secretaries. Perhaps I have misunderstood the function of these people.

In the old days, unscrupulous students used to take dangerous, illegal amphetamines to help get them through tough exam revision.

Now they use . . . Ritalin (methylphenidate hydrochloride), the legally prescribed and very potent pill which is increasingly given to children, some of them very young.

Would doctors or parents give amphetamines to small boys and girls? Of course not. Why then do they give them a drug that has such similar effects?

If you want to comment on Peter Hitchens, click on Comments and scroll down

Sebastian Kinsman – good point that changing a few rules can dramatically alter the breeding rates of different sections of the population. There are those who deny genetic differences between sub-groups within a race, just as there are those who deny differences between the sexes and who believe that any differences in behaviour between men and women are due only to society’s expectations, and without these prejudices 50% of women would be car mechanics, and they probably believe that the difference between a pitbul and a labrador has nothing to do with their genes or breeding.

Alan Thomas – I would reply but, as usual, you have not made any points apart from telling everyone who I remind you of. But thanks anyway for drawing attention to my post for others who are able to debate.

Thucydides – I do not compare races, partly because there is no point saying the Africans are better at this, the Japanese are better at that, and partly because under the current authorities we are allowed only to say good things about other races and bad things about our own race. For example, I can say ‘white upper class inbred twits’ quite freely, but a blogger was arrested for using the word ‘likey’ in an email to a council blog in a context where it rhymed with an offensive word for a gypsy. Do you approve of his arrest?

@Wiliam Benson
"Are you suggesting, or outright saying, that no one can change? Or just Mr Hitchens?"

This is what worries me about a Trot who then claims to be not a Trot, such as a Socialist or a 'conservative' . Especially a Trot who might possibly have supported the Provisional IRA and who ought therefore to have been hanged in the first place. (By Trot I mean general communist troublemaker.)

1. They might still be a Trot despite what they say. Philby, Burgess, MacLean etc come to mind. (I know they were not Stalinists not Trots but you get my point.)

2. They genuinely become not-Trots, but they are by definition rather fickle in their allegiances. So, in ten years from now what will they be, Trot again, or still not-Trot, or what?

PH says he did not believe in God, then believed in him, then no, then yes (I don't know the exact order) so he does not seem to be a paragon of consistency.

Finally, I suggest there remains something Trot in PH's thinking, in his endlessly picking over the definition of what is a conservative, in his disputing whether the Conservatives are conservatives, in his general troublemaking.

I agree absolutely with your identification of the problem, that the financial incentives built into the fiscal system amount to a breeding programme of an underclass.

Clinton saw the same problem in the US and fixed it to some extent with Workfare. Frank Field saw and understood the problem in the mid-1990s but very sadly was removed by Blair and Brown.

IDS also understands the problem very well and I believe he is implementing some of the correct steps via changes to the tax and welfare structures to remove these incentives and discourage incontinent breeding by those who are unsuitable.

A full and frank response, a 'coming out', I would suggest, which not only confirms why you consider BNP leader Nick Griffin to be 'one of the better people', but possibly answers Jerry Owens' question as to why some prefer to to write above a pen name. Carry on like this, Bob, and who knows, you might gain enough support from the usual suspects when the expected night of the long knives takes place and NG is dumped into the dustbin of history.
But never mind, if some of your like-minded friends in Greece get their way, it might provide an answer as to a suitable home for would-be emigrants. One can but hope...

It is not just the Nazis who indulge in breeding programmes. We all know that the criminal underclass in Britain are being paid to breed by welfare, paid for by those who work, and who, because so much of their money has been confiscated and given to the underclass, in many cases these useful and superior members of society themselves have to postpone having their own children as they cannot afford to start a family, and this sometimes results in fewer children, or even none at all, and so, by the forced transfer of their earnings to the lower types, the breeding rate of the better ones is reduced.

So we too indulge in breeding programmes, but we use money, not death camps like the Nazis did, or the Soviet Union did on a much larger scale. And we do not favour the physically strong and the ruthless, or certain races, as the Nazis did, nor do we favour by class or race as the Soviets did, instead we favour those of any class or race whose genes tend to make them criminals; we favour the anti-social, the idle, the alcoholics, the drug dealers, the yobs and rapists, whatever their race. In short, we favour those who make the lives of the poor in particular in this country a misery, including the disabled poor who go short whilst we pamper the criminals.

The rich Left can, to a certain extent, insulate themselves from the results of the crime they cause for the poor by moving away from the poor areas, just as they also insulate themselves from the type of schools they inflict on the poor by moving into the catchment areas of the best state schools for their children, or use private tutors.

There are many supporters of this breeding programme of criminals, and these supporters attempt to portray those who object to the nurturing and breeding of our criminal underclass as being ‘right wing extremists’, or the type of person who also supports a holocaust against the Jews. This is despite the fact that Nick Griffin on Question Time said the BNP was the only British Party that fully supports the rights of the Israelis to defend themselves against terrorism. And the BNP would immediately stop the payment the British government currently makes via ‘aid’ to Palestinian prisoners’ families in prison in Israel for terrorism. Some of these prisoners will undoubtedly support the often-stated aims of some of their leaders, which is to drive the Jews into the sea. So, rather than imply who supports the last wicked holocaust against the Jews, let us see who supports and hopes for the next wicked holocaust against the Jews, one that would give a level of joy to the Left that they have not felt since the downfall of white S Africa and S.Rhodesia.

@Brian Meredith,
You may have missed my original question:
'Please could you confirm that the International Socialists had a policy of "unconditional support", to use Ian Birchall's phrase, for the IRA's activities between 1969-75"
The dates 1969-75 refer to the dates of Mr Hitchens' membership of the International Socialists according to his wikipedia entry. I have no doubt that he has been a stalwart opponent of the IRA for many years, but wikipedia is vague about the political views he held during his extended adolescence. If Mr Hitchens doesn't wish to elaborate on that time so be it.

Are you suggesting, or outright saying, that no one can change? Or just Mr Hitchens?

You seem to have a style similar to previous posters who were only interested in causing trouble. What, exactly, is your agenda here? Because you certainly do not seem to have any desire in debating what Mr Hitchens posts.

By the way, I am still waiting, with bated breath, for your evidence relating to anti-depressants.

Sebastian Kinsman: If you're suggesting that our host has been a supporter of the IRA then I have to ask where you have been all these years. Mr. H. was, to the best of my recollection just about the only journalist in the western media who was not seduced by the Good Friday agreement, describing it at the time as giving in to terrorism. Inevitably he was heavily criticised by the left wing media for being a curmudgeon (plus ca change!) or if you prefer, for exposing the delusion that the war on terrorism could be won by letting convicted murderers out of jail.

But I thought 'mikebarnes' is a pen name, much the same as Bob, son of... So why the question?

mikebarnes

Ach so, a nationalist, a socialist and 'racially so'. Good heavens, that makes you one of those...Well, I'd have never guessed. It all makes sense now - no wonder Jerry and A.G come flying to the rescue. No doubt, when Bob, son of... has worked out the final solution to seeing off the genetic sub groups, he'll be back to add his support.

Mr Kinsman, can you please explain what gibberish I have said; I'm not a Christian and never will be, hence the reason I do not insult people when they come up with facts not fiction that our nation is forced to live by.

Nice one Jerry Qwen .
I always find it amusing when these grammar Nazi's trip and fall. as they do on many occasions.
Its what the left do. and to some extent modern Tories do as well. They humph and blow calling it a typo or being pressed for time.
I remember our resident grammar teacher ( who is by the way not a grammar nazi ) Mr Peter Preston . Who whilst chastising a chap for the use of *we* to describe. a percentage of those who might be in agreement. Then went on to do the very same. No it wasn't ironic . I told him of that error . Since then he ignore my efforts.
As fot Mr Odious Monologue . I'll be keeping my eyes on you. Revenge is best served ice cold.
Just spend a bit of time unravelling this post. It may just save a blush at a lattere time.
@ Mr Kinsman
Your wont to create controversy on this blog , with the sole reason to getting banned. Seems to me very childish. Best grow up or ban yourself. Because some things you do say are of interest . Theirs not many posting here, to the right of Gengis. By the way. my politics are very socialist but racially so . So one could never describe me as right or left . More likely right or wrong . And each day the camp who regard me as wrong, are pushed back by the latest scandal. news. or upset.
THey need challenging daily .Getting banned plays right into their laps.

I sometimes think much the same about Bob, son of Bob, but I guess the reason is only too obvious. And, in any case, who am I to bang on about names...
And, in another case, I'm fairly certain 'mikebarnes' is a pen name. And what is there not to like about the comments of the old (now disillusioned) BNP stalwart and his regular band of supporters?

Having read Bob's many offerings (usually on the subject of white raacists, those who hate their own country, genetic sub-groups and other similar delights) for several years, I have to say that old Abba lyric ' Does your mother know you're out' often comes to mind. In my case, I change it to 'how you turned out'.

@Brian Meredith
"It seems perfectly clear to me. Mr. H. is a conservative but he is not a Conservative because the Conservatives are not conservative enough."

Can someone who supports or previously supported the terrorist activities of the Provisional IRA, or who is or was a member of a political organisation which announced unconditional support for the IRA be accurately be described as a conservative?

What was PH's position on the terrorist activities of the IRA during his membership of the SWP, a faction of the International Socialists?

@Sebastian Kinsman.
Thank you.
I entirely agree about mikebarnes showing traces of the idiot savant.
That's what I find so tantalising, otherwise it would be easy to dismiss him as nothing but an idiot.

parallel_monologue
An obscure and cryptic name if ever there was one! Any specific reason why you can't furnish us with your real name?
I know mikebarnes spelling isnt always correct but certainly he doesn't write in a cryptic way, if you think he does I suspect it is merely that his posts are ones that you don't like rather than you can't understand them. Or at least I hope that's the case as otherwise it doesn't say much for your powers of understanding.
You mention 'obscure' what precisely do you mean? Surely his comments are his opinion, please explain what you mean.
As for him 'murdering' the English language which is an odd phrase, may I ask why you spelt 'Language' with a capital L instead of a non capital?

In reply to Colin Walker .
Thank you for you polite reply, to my not so polite question . Missuse of drugs is indeed a thorny question . As one that required morphine back in the day .I come across as a devout supporter of it.
Now I exist on codienes that are opiates. from which heroin is based. So somewhat of a druggy .But not by choice.
What I find so unacceptable , That anyone takes these sort of drugs at all , for a mental high, or fizz or whatever . other than to reduce a physical pain, to an endurable level.

@ Parralel_ Monologue
If you have given up trying to unravel my cryptic and obscure comments. This then must be a total waste of a reply . So I won't bother.
@ Mr Kinsman.
Amatuer (sic ) no just a typo. others do it all the time. I on the other hand must forgo that and become attacked by the grammar nazis. Still better than being ignored entirely . Tell me ,does it give you a sense of whatever. to do that.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.